Our primitive ancestors lived in a world that was essentially static; there was little societal or technological change from one generation to the next. This meant that our ancestors lived in a world that was zero sum -- if a particular gain happened to one group of humans, it came at the expense of another.

This is the world our minds evolved to understand. To this day, we often see the gain of some people and assume it has come at the expense of others ...

[O]ur evolutionary intuition is that, because foreign workers gain from trade and immigrant workers gain from joining the U.S. economy, native-born workers must lose. This zero-sum thinking leads us to see trade and immigration as conflict ("trade wars," "immigrant invaders") when trade and immigration actually produce cooperation and mutual benefit, the exact opposite of conflict.

Mark Seecof writes: Rubin shows how desperately some economists wish to reinforce their ideological position by borrowing ideas from other disciplines. Sadly, Rubin shows that stealing a few buzzwords from another discipline isn't the same as drawing real understanding from it.

Rubin wants to hitch his no-borders wagon to evolutionary psychology, but hasn't read much of it--or he would have learnt that humans are capable (have evolved to be capable) of a variety of more or less selfish or cooperative behaviours. He would also have learnt that groups of humans scattered around the world are very different in capabilities, attitudes, and behaviours and that many of those differences are genetically mediated (that is, they cannot be altered much by economic education).

Rubin's supposition that a world with little sociological or technical change must be one of zero-sum economics is false. All of recorded history abounds with examples to the contrary and anthropologists will testify to the eagerness with which many peoples have traded with outsiders--even in eras of "little change."

Equally false is Rubin's supposition that everyone is really the same, so people viewing others as members of (in- or out-groups) is arbitrary. Evolution depends on differences--it cannot act without them--so any economist who wishes to draw on evolutionary theory must acknowledge and account for real differences among people.

At the same time, evolutionary pressures (almost certainly) cause people to vary their amount of cooperation with their degree of kinship. Cooperative phenotypes act on socially-mediated pseudo-kinship as well as actual genetic kinship. It's not hard to get people to cooperate, if you persuade them to treat each other as kin. In fact, that's the point of the Golden Rule.

Look, Rubin's own discipline can explain why many people want to restrict trade. Those who wish to restrict trade are those who expect, personally, to gain by such restrictions! Economists often call them "rent seekers" and they include producers and merchants more often than "common folk." Does the term "Corn Laws" mean anything to you? Rubin's op-ed falsely suggests that the prejudices of ordinary voters result in trade restrictions, but anyone who looks into the matter will discover that industrial interests drive lawmaking in this area. Virtually every restriction on trade in the USA is a triumph by rent-seeking incumbents in some industry.

We can theorize both "classical economic" and "evo-psych" reasons why people would like to restrict immigration.

For the first, people who will personally suffer from immigration (that is, to a first approximation, workers rather than employers) would like to restrict it. This is not irrational, because (Rubin's purely ideological assertion to the contrary notwithstanding), economic gains from immigration are not evenly distributed. (Note that demands by particular industries to import cheap labor, regardless of externalities, may properly be regarded as a form of rent-seeking.)

As for the second, evo-psych predicts people would be wary of immigration, because most immigrants are not kin (note that this theory perfectly explains the special case of people favoring immigration from their own ancestral regions). Evo-psych predicts, on a very strong basis, that people would rather preserve the economic bounty where they are for their own kin.

Even an economist must agree that (a) immigrants themselves only move because they expect to be better off in their new homes than their old, and (b) once they arrive they will compete with natives for existing economic resources. To genes competing in evolution's rat-race, there is no reason to help immigrants better themselves, and every reason to discourage local competition from immigrants.

It's true that immigrants may help expand economic resources--in a society where greater availability of labor fuels economic expansion. However, the notion, oft-repeated by economists, that labor availability necessarily fuels industrial expansion is obviously false (if it were true, Bangladesh would be rich).

History shows that industrial economic growth depends on high-IQ labor, and is retarded where chiefly low-IQ labor is available no matter how cheaply. Since IQ is at least 60% heritable, only an ideologically-blinded economist would suppose that unlimited immigration by low-IQ people would certainly fuel economic expansion. In fact, there are strong economic reasons to think otherwise, because in the presence of many low-IQ people, society diverts the labor of many high-IQ people from industry to simply managing (or exploiting) the low-IQ crowds.

An economist who really wants to reconcile his discipline with evolutionary psychology should ask "why should people follow abstract theories rather than behave in the ways that promoted the survival of countless generations of their ancestors?" He should then return to Rubin's notion of education, but educate people to discern rent-seeking proposals and oppose them.

As for immigration, once the economist clears his mind of the notion that all immigration is an unalloyed blessing, he can promote a rational policy of encouraging immigration only by people who would promote the industrial economy. Those people could/would be accepted as "kin" and so engage our evolved capacity for cooperation.

The one area of economics which has been pretty-much zero-sum from ancient times right up through today is competition for land.

Even if you slept through everything else I wrote you should agree that to the extent immigrants compete for land, they really are zero-sum competitors and a rational economic actor would seek to exclude them, the more vigorously as he cared more about land. In former times when many people depended directly on their own land for their own and their family's subsistence, both "economic" and "evo-psych" reasons would teach them to oppose immigration.

Only those parts of our modern industrialized economy for which land is not a major factor of production can look upon immigration with complacency. You shouldn't expect (reasonable, as opposed, say, to Marxist) "economic education" to persuade other people to irrationally favor immigrants entering a zero-sum competition for land. This is probably why people readily see non-kin immigrants as "invaders." For all time, a bunch of non-kin moving into the area meant greater (zero-sum) competition for food, because food was directly proportional to land. So immigrants are invaders.

Today a bunch of immigrants means zero-sum competition for pleasant suburban homes. This is why rich people who want low-wage immigrants to serve them favor immigration and everyone else in America rationally opposes it.

47 comments:

daveg
said...

This zero-sum thinking leads us to see trade and immigration as conflict ("trade wars," "immigrant invaders") when trade and immigration actually produce cooperation and mutual benefit, the exact opposite of conflict.

Great. I am sure Mr. Rubin wants to place Israel at the head of the line to receive the beneifts of open borders, post-haste!

This is the second time I've heard political types claim the primitive world was static. Too bad there is no time machine we can send him back in to test his theory.

Before his God of History appeared, the world was inert and static. (Note the assumption: other people are also inert and static, without internationalist economists to change them for the better). Where would we all be without internatinoalists like him?

I think this tale is a great example of the growing "pains" experienced by Israel as it moves from a Mercury society to an Apollo society.

Rubin's article is still written from Mercury point of view, unfortunately.

It is a rainy night, and we are at Tel HaShomer Hospital. Only one orderly is around. He is on night duty tonight in the room of the “sleeping” former Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. Everyone but Sharon himself knows that he is no longer the Prime Minister of Israel.

The orderly is sitting, peeling an apple; and G, the Israeli Secret Service (Shabak) agent, is nodding off.

Suddenly, all of the machines start to beep. The PM is waking up!

Sharon says, “I haven’t slept like that for a long time! Get me my strategist, Reuven Adler. I have some ideas for a new direction.”

The orderly says, “Good morning, sir. How do you feel?”

Sharon answers, “I am dying of hunger. Where am I?”

The Shabak agent continues to sleep, while the orderly explains to Sharon what had happened to him.

Sharon does not take him seriously and says, “So tonight you fooled with the PM, eh?”

The orderly says, “Sorry, sir; but you are really no longer the PM.”

After a few minutes, Sharon asks, “So who replaced me?”

The orderly answers, “Ehud Olmert.”

Sharon reacts, “Olmert? What will happen if war breaks out? He does not know how to run the army! At least, Shaul Mofaz is still there!”

The orderly answers, “Mofaz is the Minister of Transportation.”

“So who is the Defense Minister?”

The orderly says, “Peretz.”

“That old man is still alive?!” asks Sharon in wonderment.

The orderly whispers, trembling, “Not Peres. Peretz, Amir Peretz.”

“What? Are you crazy? I close my eyes for a minute, and you guys let a Labor leader take over the defense of the country? Not all the factories in Dimona are the same. Does he know that? Listen, get Omri here right away. He will fix everything.”

“Sorry, sir; Omri is on his way to jail.”

“My son in jail? For that nonsense? I can’t believe it. So get me my lawyer quickly. Get Klagsbald.”

The orderly responds, “Klagsbald is on his way to jail.”

Sharon calms down and says, “I knew I could count on Klagsbald. He will get Omri out of it.”

The orderly corrects him and says, “No, sir. Klagsbald is also on his way to serve time in jail. He was driving and not paying attention and caused an accident, unintentionally hitting a car and killing a young woman, who was on her way to an Olympic career, and her son.”

As a final year economics student, I feel somewhat betrayed by my profession. All those years in IPE learning about how good openness is and how everyone has the same potential for class after class-development, trade, growth, IPE, HBD never came up.

And now, this guy brings up some weird evolutionary theory to rationalize our behavior? What about the different environmental conditions that caused separate races, of different intelligences, to evolve?

And while he spouts that theory, there is also a very simple reason why people don't like illegal immigration: crime. So, people are ingrained by some outdated evolutionary trait to dislike a hike in the crime rate?

Anyway, when you increase the population, but that population does not generate enough economic value to support themselves, then you either have an increase in crime or a further drain on government resources. If economists knew something about IQ they would know that the entire American population can't move into high value innovation, and that more than half of the population is suited for nothing more than factory and secretarial work, much of which can be automated.

One the major flaws in libertarian thinking is this fanciful notion that society can be set up in such a way that the pool of people who are losers in the economic world won't ever resort to non-economic measures as a group to get what they want regardless of how large that pool may grow. (Or else, if they do, they can at least be successfully and righteously suppressed by the state.) Yet somehow, they argue, this can all be accomplished while maintaining democracy!

Since this obviously cannot be the case, some libertarians argue additionally that their policies will never create a sufficiently large number of losers. Almost all boats must rise and any evidence to the contrary must be ignored.

Libertarians, very much like liberals, are constantly seesawing between arguments based on their view of economic morality and arguments based on practicality; often they don't seem able to distinguish the two. In the minds of liberals, neoconservatives, and libertarians alike, what is moral must be synonymous with what is practical. (It is moral to spread freedom and democracy across the globe, therefore it must also be practical, so say our neoconservative friends! It is moral to transform Africa into a continent of First World countries, therefore it must be practical, so say our liberal friends!) Open borders libertarians are not perturbed at all by the possibility that the growth of the Hispanic population in the United States can only result in the further marginalization of libertarianism. Open borders are moral in their view and therefore they must be practical--somehow, someway. Libertarians will cling to any argument, no matter how desperate or foolish, that justifies their moral suppositions as practical.

In a similar vein, libertarians sold us on the benefits of free trade with China based on its practical consequences: America would undoubtedly benefit from such a policy, they asserted. Now that serious doubts have been raised about the wisdom of that approach, we see Alex Tabarrok and others arguing that if we lose in this game, then we deserve to lose. Who are we to put our national interests ahead of the Chinese? Of course, that argument for economic altruism isn't how the free traders sold the public on their ideas originally. "We aren't capable of losing in this game," they used to tell everyone. I guess moving the argument to different grounds is better than admitting they were wrong.

Repeat the mantra again: economics is everything, all else is illusion...

...society diverts the labor of many high-IQ people from industry to simply managing (or exploiting) the low-IQ crowds.

Excellent description of the ethny to which Rubin himself belongs: high Ashkenazi IQ + ethnocentrism + hatred of white Christian Europeans = the race and immigration policies presently wrecking the West.

unfortunately i must agree that the first thing i notice is that the author is jewish. why so many jewish people write about the need for euro nations to have open borders and free trade is not clear to me. but the fact that they do this predictably is beyond question.

Why does spleen seem to swell whenever jews are around? Not just here. But everywhere for thousands of years.

The explanation must be that they are magnificent creatures whom everyone else is envious of (that's the jewish explanation).

People with guilty consciences always seek to stigmatize or ban free expression. Don't publicize or discuss racial disparities in crime and achievement - that's "rassist"! Don't mention the health threat posed by homosexual activity - that's "evil homophobia"! Don't criticize Bush - that's being "an enemy of democracy"! Don't point out that my cousin was jailed for auto theft - who are you to judge, you bastard! Don't be hating or dissin my gang or my Obama - you're a cracker who needs his lip shut ("you wouldn't say the same thing if we were holding a gun on you on MLK Blvd.!"). If you gore MY ox, you need to be silenced, and quick.

The irony is, the enemies of free speech always pose as highly moral and righteous. Jewsus (despite his faults) had the right reply to such people:

Wow it's amazing to see the breadth and depth of intellectual failure as exemplified by anti-semitism.

There is no "Jewish Conspiracy" to destroy America. Want five opinions? Ask three Jews. If anything Jews are more patriotic (Shuster and Siegel: Superman, Jack Kirby: Captain America, Jack Warner, Louis B. Mayer, Stan Lee: Spider-Man, Fantastic Four) as American Patriotism offers a refuge from a hostile world intent on wiping them out.

If anything the Open Borders crowd consists of the rich, mostly WASPs, who as Steve points out want cheap and compliant servants. As opposed to middle class folks who want cheap and safe suburban housing.

[Anyone who's read Before the Dawn knows how false the idea of a static pre-history human society is, against the mountain of scientific evidence supporting a rapidly changing natural and social environment]

What's really being argued here is the "moral superiority" argument of the open borders crowd as an element of social control. Wade's argument that religion's main evolutionary purpose was to prevent free-riders from destroying altruism makes sense, in the context of hunter-gatherer societies without kings or hierarchies.

Given how free-flowing and lacking social control our open society has become, it's not surprising that "morally superior" arguments i.e. religion in another form is the principle means by which elites argue for open borders.

The same people who view themselves as beyond religion often practice it intensely in another form: global warming religion (Mother Gaia!) or moral superiority (another Calvinistic offshoot).

I disagree. Jews are disproportionately represented in leftist and anti-nationalist movements. This is partially due to the longstanding association of the European right with anti-Semitism, which most recently bore fruit with Adolf Hitler. It's just good sense; nobody likes having their extended family exterminated. So, yah, Jews tend elite-lefty in their politics (they were populist-lefty before Harvard let them in; remember the many Jews active in the labor movement before the war?).

Neocon-ism is an outgrowth of liberalism disgusted with the Soviet Union as an illiberal country; while I'm pissed about the Iraq war, a lot of those guys served with distinction as anti-Communists during the Cold War. Yes I like a welfare state, but I wouldn't want a brutal dictatorship like Soviet Russia to win; I'll put up with longer work hours to avoid the NKVD and the KGB.

So I agree to some degree with Kevin MacDonald, although I'm not sure the effects are quite as universally malevolent as he says; some 'diverse' immigration broadens the gene pool and allows enough people in at the bottom to prevent the sort of demographic collapse Europe may be facing. (Those of you who say whites could have more space to have kids with no immigration have to consider the European example; Sweden's all-white and they're not reproducing much.) That doesn't mean we don't have too much now; you can have too much of anything. (Drinking enough water will kill you.)

Besides, I'm not conservative enough to believe America would have been better off with a culture that remained in the 1950s, and without a civil rights movement we might end up like South Africa, with even worse crime.

Diversity also has an anti-socialist effect, ironically enough. (Which makes me annoyed, but might be something for a lot of you white nationalists to consider; recall the most homogeneous European countries tend to have big welfare states.)

And I doubt the Jews are wholly responsible for our immigration mess. The French have barely any Jews left and they've got even worse racial problems.

There is no "Jewish Conspiracy" to destroy America. Want five opinions? Ask three Jews.

Who spoke of a conspiracy? Who said Jews didn't disagree with each other? But they overwhelmingly agree that everyone else should do what's best for Jews, and overwhelmingly agree that Diversity Is Our Strength.

If anything the Open Borders crowd consists of the rich, mostly WASPs..

Ah, those evil WASPs, source of all America's ills. If it weren't for all those deeply patriotic Jews you mention, just think of the havoc they'd have wreaked by now.

almost all jewish politicians are for open borders for the US. that's just a fact. there is nothing that knee jerk defenders of jewish politicians can say to the contrary. there is no evidence they can provide to contradict this truth.

what jewish citizens want is irrelevant, as is what all other citizens want. what politicians want is what matters because politicians control policy, not citizens.

that's beside the point that lots of these jewish "patriots" are also in favor of open borders. these are not mutually exclusive positions.

i'd say it's likely that stan lieber is an american patriot while at the same time being a big open borders enthusiast. many new yorkers are. and let's be honest about why many jewish citizens are american "patriots". in the last few decades the US has gone after every serious enemy that jewish people have.

who wouldn't be a big fan of the USA if it went after every major enemy they had? the US supports israel blindly, to fault. maybe if it didn't, a lot less jewish citizens would be such "patriots".

Prof. Rubin's overarching misunderstanding is his mis-analysis of modern trade. It consists of what has been termed "labor arbitrage", i.e., capital seeking the lowest wage venues for production. That it is why wealthy and corporate interests support "free" trade and those who live by wages (in first world economies) do not. Not wishing to place the rope around one's own neck is the highest form of rationality!

here's an example. michael bloomberg, the jewish mayor of new york city. he's a "patriot", and he's also a HUGE, MAJOR fan of open borders. he LOVES illegal aliens, and is willing to not enforce the law to make sure they can move freely in his city.

now bloomberg, he wants to impose a fee on any vehicle driving into new york. $8 or $12 is what i heard. well, nothing would make this guy happier than having thousands of mexicans jump the border and drive to NYC so they could pay his fees and become residents. this would help make two of his policy decisions a success. more taxes, and more illegal immigration.

hey, thanks jewish american "patriot"! raising our taxes and immigration levels? i never knew how great jewish politicians really were for the US.

I think there is definitely some disconnect between your average Jew on the street and the Jewish lobby regarding immigration. For most liberals, including most Jews, immigration may be something they support at least to some extent, but usually it isn't really a burning issue. For Jewish organizations and elites, however, it is perceived as being much more significant.

Maybe this explains why, on one hand, many here are frustrated with Jews and why, on the other hand, many Jews don't understand why they are being singled out.

This is partially due to the longstanding association of the European right with anti-Semitism, which most recently bore fruit with Adolf Hitler. It's just good sense; nobody likes having their extended family exterminated. So, yah, Jews tend elite-lefty in their politics (they were populist-lefty before Harvard let them in; remember the many Jews active in the labor movement before the war?).

This raises an interesting issue: I think there might be some difference in the outlook "Old American Jews" (not that old, of course, but late 1800s/early 1900s) and the academic arrivals who came to the United States in and around World War II. I think a lot of the WWII era arrivals were far less pro-American and were responsible for promulgating some of the most pernicious Euro-leftist bullshit in our society. Critical theory, effete intellectual Marxism (as opposed to the plain old blue-collar variety of the populist era), psychoanalysis, and a whole horde of other really negative intellectual trends took off in America following World War II. Since that time, it seems that we haven't managed to free American academic life from left-wing European influence.

/This will be my only post on the topic of Jews on this thread. I promise.

I think a lot of the WWII era arrivals were far less pro-American and were responsible for promulgating some of the most pernicious Euro-leftist bullshit in our society. Critical theory, effete intellectual Marxism (as opposed to the plain old blue-collar variety of the populist era)Yeah, I really have no ill will toward the labor movement. Brought us the weekend, and gave lots of blue-collar Americans a better life until they got shut down in the early eighties. A strong labor movement's a big part of the reason Europeans have national health care, six-week vacations...

psychoanalysis, and a whole horde of other really negative intellectual trends took off in America following World War II. Since that time, it seems that we haven't managed to free American academic life from left-wing European influence.Part of the problem may be the tenure system. After the generation of the Sixties dies off, I think you might see things change.

The most important data points about econmics facts are the experiences of millions living breathing human beings.

The human species does not have to defer to mad calibrators in the economic profession.

A very intersting critique of econometrics came out a a few years back by an applied mathematician who teaches at Berkley. If I recall he published a nontechnical version in skeptical inquirer.

He argued that econometrics may be incapable of establishing anything.

Also have a look at the devastating critique of the free trade econometric by a Korean economist who teaches a Cambridge. His analysis of the pro-free trade econometric data can be found in his book "kicking away the ladder"

Just look at what Jeffrey Sacks did to Russian men. His free market shock therapy program has resulted in what can only be described as genocidal in consequences. Thousands of Russian men have gone to early grave because of jeffrey sacks economic theories.

Jeffrey Sacks is without a doubt a war criminal and should be hung for war crimes.

Closer to home,SPIC cuban economist testified before congress in the late eighties arguing that his econometric data showed that high levels of legal immigratin was good for American workers. His testimony was crucial for the passage of the last massive amensty. This spic cuban bastard intellectual fraud should be deproted back to Cuba. Spic cuban borjas has inflicted severe pain and hardship on NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS. Despite this the legal immigrant English twerp Peter Brimelow is very found of quoting the "great" SPIC intellect from Miami(now a Cuban colony)

NATIVE BORN WHITE CHRISTIAN AMERICANS are the final word not Jew Carl Rubin or SPIC SPIC SPIC SPIC SPIC Cuban economist George Borjas.

deport all the cuban miami SPICS out of OUR AMERICA THEY ARE NOT WELCOMED

I'm no fan of "sanctuary city" policies, but Mike Bloomberg didn't come up with New York's law -- Ed Koch did, and not because he wanted to increase illegal immigration. Koch came up with the policy for simple public safety reasons: so illegal immigrants wouldn't be afraid of calling the police or fire departments or getting checked out in emergency rooms instead of spreading tuberculosis or whatever. Ed Koch happens to be against "open borders", but as the mayor of New York City, he had no power to control America's borders.

Every subsequent NYC mayor kept Koch's policy in place for the same public safety reasons, including Giuliani, who is also against open borders.

"That it is why wealthy and corporate interests support "free" trade and those who live by wages (in first world economies) do not."

If you haven't figured it out over the last two decades, let me break it to you: the dominant economic system in the world is Capitalism, in its various forms. There's a reason it's not called Laborism. To succeed under this system, you need to make it your priority to use your labor to accumulate capital and then allocate it intelligently.

Fortunately, the U.S. government, it its wisdom and beneficence, has provided you tax incentives to do this: for example, you can defer paying income taxes on $15,500 of your income this year and invest that money, tax-deferred. Do that every year for a few decades, and invest in equities (tilted toward smaller, lower P/E stocks or funds investing in the same) and you will have a seven-figure sum.

michael bloomberg is typical of jewish politicians. immediately after having his city directly attacked by people breaking immigration law, he reaffirms his committment to ignoring immigration law.

another home run from a jewish american "patriot". now mosques are slowly and surely going up in NYC, replacing churches. i'm sure this will work out well, as thousands of muslims hostile to the US overstay their visas and assemble in new york city.

jewish american "patriots" are so good for america. if only all US politicians could be jewish.

To succeed under this system, you need to make it your priority to use your labor to accumulate capital and then allocate it intelligently.

Like people on the left half of the Bell Curve are going to do that. As the US progressively becomes absorbed into Latin America we can expect something akin to Chavismo to become a strong political force.

Please name three prominent Jewish Americans who are anti-wide open borders.

Koch came up with the policy for simple public safety reasons: so illegal immigrants wouldn't be afraid of calling the police or fire departments or getting checked out in emergency rooms instead of spreading tuberculosis ...

But if they weren't here, they wouldn't be spreading tuberculosis here. Comprende?

Fortunately, the U.S. government, it its wisdom and beneficence, has provided you tax incentives to do this: for example, you can defer paying income taxes on $15,500 of your income this year and invest that money, tax-deferred.

Do you have any idea how small the percentage is of American households that owe $15,500 or more in income taxes?

Jews are much less influential on Continental Europe, and yet the Europeans seem even more embracing of multiracialism than white Americans.

And the Jewish organizations that want open borders couldn't get their agenda passed without the help of Gentile politicians.

The real problem is the Gentile politicians selling out whites, but why do they do it?

Why does THE CHIMP want to destroy white America so badly? Does he REALLY think a non-white America will be good for his daughters to live in?

Do politicians think that a nonwhite US will benefit corrupt White politicians over the long run?

The White populations in much of Latin America, such as Venezuela and Bolivia, are getting closer to the day when the non-white population will overthrow them, what makes white politicians think this will not be their ultimate fate unless the door is slammed shut?

I concede that many Jewish organizations want open borders and white displacement even though ordinary Jews do not want this (I assume that ordinary Jews realize that the end of white civilization is the end of the Jews) but the Jews are not the whole story by a long shot.

Why does THE CHIMP want to destroy white America so badly? Does he REALLY think a non-white America will be good for his daughters to live in?

Bush Jr. is a phony regular guy.

He's lived most of his life in a sheltered cocoon of plutocratic privilege. He thinks most ‘spics are like his posh class Venezuelan sister-in-law, Jeb's wife, or else like the obsequious servants he remembers from his long ago youth of the 1950's and '60's.

There must be some cognitive dissonance and white gult swirling around inside Jr.s’ skull. There's this ABC news video footage I've seen of Bush Sr. and Barb holding a children’s' party at Kennebunkport in 1989. George Jr.'s nieces and nephews are conspicuous among twenty or so little kids by their noticeably brown skins.

"michael bloomberg is typical of jewish politicians. immediately after having his city directly attacked by people breaking immigration law, he reaffirms his committment to ignoring immigration law."

How fucking dense are you? David Dinkins -- not a Jew. Rudy Giuliani -- not a Jew. Richard Daley -- not a Jew. Virtually every mega-city mayor has enacted policies keeping his cops from asking about immigration status, for the same public safety reasons, along with these two other reasons: 1) The Feds wouldn't do shit if they told them (except maybe schedule the illegal for a hearing and release him on his own recognizance; 2) The mayors have no control over U.S. immigration policy or the lack of enforcement of it.

David Davenport:

"Please name three prominent Jewish Americans who are anti-wide open borders."

Charles Krauthammer, Robert Samuelson, and Mickey Kaus.

"Do you have any idea how small the percentage is of American households that owe $15,500 or more in income taxes?"

Retard, you don't need to owe $15,500 in federal income taxes to contribute that much into a 401(k) and receive a significant immediate tax benefit (equivalent to your effective tax rate times $15,500) and a huge long-term benefit (tax-deferred compounding for decades). That you haven't taken the time to understand this isn't surprising though. Far easier to rail at Jews and then educate yourself in a way that might improve your station in life.

BTW, losers can't accumulate capital, but most other people can in America. I've know guys who climb telephone polls and wear hardhats for a living and retire owning seven figures in stocks.

Wow it's amazing to see the breadth and depth of intellectual failure as exemplified by anti-semitism.

Start out with your thesis: ye old argumentum ad hominem.

There is no "Jewish Conspiracy" to destroy America.

Then move to ye old straw man argument.

Want five opinions? Ask three Jews.

Add a distraction. Jews all agree that "is it good for the jews" is the most fundamental question; this is the prime metric of jewishness. The disagreements come in answering the question, not asking it. Philo-semites never seem to tire of pretending no one knows this.

If anything Jews are more patriotic (Shuster and Siegel: Superman, Jack Kirby: Captain America, Jack Warner, Louis B. Mayer, Stan Lee: Spider-Man, Fantastic Four) as American Patriotism offers a refuge from a hostile world intent on wiping them out.

No, Jewish patriotism is a means, not an end. Or, it's an end only insofar as it's a means - Jewry's "patriotism" never amounts to doing what's best for America when that conflicts with what's best for jewry. Comics are a good example. Captain America is a very jewish Captain America ("Propositional nationhood! Open borders! Diversity! These are what America's about!"). Spider-Man is a very jewish message too (constantly persecuted, total mensch/genius who can't catch a break, martyr complex, guilt complex, nebbishy worry-wart). Same with all the other comic characters jews create. They're just packaging for the jewish message.

If anything the Open Borders crowd consists of the rich, mostly WASPs, who as Steve points out want cheap and compliant servants. As opposed to middle class folks who want cheap and safe suburban housing.

This is self-contradictory. The rich are not mostly "WASPs." 45% of the superrich in this country are jews. Half of the open-borders Dem party primary money comes from jews. A Jew bought out the Sierra Club, not a WASP. Jews pulled off the 1965 immigration act, not "WASPs." Funny how "anti-Semitism" is a broad, deep intellectual failure for conspiracy kooks, but "anti-WASPism"* is hunkey-dorey!

Jews are the main force behind open borders, though "rent-seekers" are right there too. But, rent-seekers just don't organize and cohere the way jews do.

*(sorry, no special word (except maybe "jewish," or "racial liberal") for "WASP"-hatred just yet, maybe "WASPs" should work on that. "WASPs" don't even get to make up their own name, but they're the big bad boogeyman? Jews agree on nothing, but those "WASPs," there's solidarity for ya?)

SFG:

Neocon-ism is an outgrowth of liberalism disgusted with the Soviet Union as an illiberal country;

More like jews who saw the writing on the wall vis-a-vis the Israel and the left.

So I agree to some degree with Kevin MacDonald, although I'm not sure the effects are quite as universally malevolent as he says;

I don't think he says that. But, I'd very much like to know if you can answer a question I've been asking for years now and never had answered. Obviously MacDonald convincingly enumerates an extensive array of non-incidentally jewish movements that were detrimental to Europeans. Where are the countervailing movements? Where's the black ink on this ledger? Where's the plus column? Innovations do not count (I can belabor why if necessary). "Countervailing" in this context means jewish movements that were beneficial to Europeans and not particularly beneficial to jews (I'd probably even settle for jewish movements that benefitted Europeans, period).

some 'diverse' immigration broadens the gene pool

WTF? This is a benefit? How?

and allows enough people in at the bottom to prevent the sort of demographic collapse Europe may be facing. (Those of you who say whites could have more space to have kids with no immigration have to consider the European example; Sweden's all-white and they're not reproducing much.)

Europe is far more densely populated than America. They could use a bit of population "collapse." Americas downward fertility trend followed on the heels of liberalism and diversity. Still, even if it's independent of liberalism and race-replacement, so what? Population shrinkage is a far better fate than race-replacement, unless you're a tax-collector.

Besides, I'm not conservative enough to believe America would have been better off with a culture that remained in the 1950s, and without a civil rights movement we might end up like South Africa, with even worse crime.

Are you smoking something? SA is the result of a black majority and a tiny white minority. It has nothing to do with civil rights. Help me out with the 50s thing. How are we better off in ways that can be attributed to the liberal/jewish kulturkampf?

Diversity also has an anti-socialist effect, ironically enough. (Which makes me annoyed, but might be something for a lot of you white nationalists to consider; recall the most homogeneous European countries tend to have big welfare states.)

It also has a pro-authoritarian effect. I'll take socialism over authoritarianism, ceteris paribus.

And I doubt the Jews are wholly responsible for our immigration mess.

I know jews aren't wholly responsible for our immigration mess. There's certainly a discussion to be had over necessary, sufficient, etc.

The French have barely any Jews left and they've got even worse racial problems.

Maybe this explains why, on one hand, many here are frustrated with Jews and why, on the other hand, many Jews don't understand why they are being singled out.

Groups are what they do, more than what they think, or are purported to think. Ye old Hartung quote:

In-groups sandwich an outline for animosity, an organizing principle for prejudice, between layers of social support. Whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish, every extremist is supported by a small number of less extreme admirers and each of those supporters is buoyed, in turn, by a larger group of sympathizers. These connections are continuous right down to the bottom of the pyramid, where vaguely symapthetic in-group members are offended by the very extremists who would have no base, and no basis, without them.

It is that vague sympathy which needs to be examined.

Americans have little trouble dismissing those same arguments when Muslims are the subject. Those same peace-loving, tolerant Muslims are the soil in which Muslim terrorism grows. They pay CAIR's salary. They provide the camoflage for Muslim gang-rapists. Etc.

/This will be my only post on the topic of Jews on this thread. I promise.

No quotas on jews...just on discussing them. ;)

Old Right:

Jews are much less influential on Continental Europe, and yet the Europeans seem even more embracing of multiracialism than white Americans.

Actually, Europe has a much smaller percentage of non-white colonists (who tend to be Caucasoid, btw) than America, yet as a whole she's swinging rightward.

Also, refer to my liver analogy above.

And the Jewish organizations that want open borders couldn't get their agenda passed without the help of Gentile politicians.

True. What's your point? That Europeans are atomized individualists who don't pursue their ethnic/racial/group interests? We knew that already.

The real problem is the Gentile politicians selling out whites, but why do they do it?

Why does THE CHIMP want to destroy white America so badly? Does he REALLY think a non-white America will be good for his daughters to live in?

Do politicians think that a nonwhite US will benefit corrupt White politicians over the long run?

They probably think (rightly) that the raised nail gets hammered down (often with a kosher hammer).

I concede that many Jewish organizations want open borders and white displacement even though ordinary Jews do not want this (I assume that ordinary Jews realize that the end of white civilization is the end of the Jews) but the Jews are not the whole story by a long shot.

What's going on?

It's not that complicated. A small, cohesive group can easily dominate a much larger, atomized "group." At the poles, there's really no upper bounds to the size of the latter.

Retard, you don't need to owe $15,500 in federal income taxes to contribute that much into a 401(k) and receive a significant immediate tax benefit (equivalent to your effective tax rate times $15,500) and a huge long-term benefit (tax-deferred compounding for decades).

What immediate tax benefit is that?

They don't need such a tax bgenefit, because they don't owe any income taxes now, and probably won't owe much in the future.

Furthermore, a large percentage of lower income American workers have no access to a 401K plan.

Why don't you go to a construction site and extol the merits of a 401K plan to the workers there?

I've know guys who climb telephone polls and wear hardhats for a living and retire owning seven figures in stocks.

If they work for one of the Bells or other regulated land line providers, they are among the minority of American workers who have a defined benefit pension as well as a 401K with employer matching. Lessee, which union do the guys who climb the poles belong to?

A Chinese-born engineer was found guilty yesterday of conspiring to export US defence technology to Beijing – including data that would make it easier to detect submarines – as the FBI gave warning that Chinese spies had become the most active secret agents in America.

Prosecutors described Chi Mak, 67, as a brilliant sleeper agent who had been passing defence technology secrets to Beijing for more than 20 years. He will be sentenced on September 10 and faces up to 45 years in jail.

…

FBI agents also said that they found a “wish list” of US military technology wanted by the Chinese. Behind Chi’s image as an unassuming, quiet workaholic, prosecutors painted a shadowy world of Chinese codenames such as “Red Flower” and “Autumn Orchid”.

Chi’s wife, brother and other relatives face trial on June 5. Prosecutors say that they will use his conviction to try to negotiate plea bargains with the family, who, like Chi, pleaded not guilty.

Svigor, good points on Jews (For the record I have become a White Preservationist only in recent years but am still not in complete agreement with the Jewish skeptic WN right. I am still working things out in my head).

Like many white Americans, I have a number of Jewish friends who act more or less and look more or less like white Americans.

Because Jews are woven into the social fabric of white America, it is hard for people like me to think that Jewish organizations can be so anti-white.

It is also hard for me to reconcile how many Jewish organizations and leaders can want the dissolution of white America (regardless of whether non-politically active Jews want this)when it is obvious that if Whites go down, the Jews will sink with the ship.

Still, as you point out, groups will act in their own interests and Jews are merely acting as a group, many without realizing it.

I would LIKE for the Jews to force their leaders to at a minimum recognize that the health of Jewry is directly proportional to the health of whites.

Since they don't, perhaps the solution would be for whites to exclude Jews from cooperating with whites politically and wait for intermarriage to integrate the Jews into the white race.

But this can ONLY happen when whites wake up and act in our own interests.

Increasingly, I think politics is a dead end for WNs because politics relies on political parties.

Parties comprise principles and lose elections even if they are ideologically pure, and anyway the public is not (yet) ready for openly race realist politicians.

The best strategy for WNs may be to simply fight to keep all immigration levels as low as possible, use fringe parties to harass the bigger ones while realizing fringe parties won't assume power, and wait for the white public's tolerance for radical anti-white egalitarianism to erode enough.

THEN move politically.

Nearly all White Americans are to widely varying degrees racially aware, and becoming more so as diversity is wielded like a sword over them.

The problem is that instincts are being suppresed from being expressed in any meaningful way, and thus cannot act politically.

Once we wake up (We will, reality cannot be ignored forever), the politics will follow to logical race realist policies in all white nations.

The key is to keep the situation from deteriorating too much by keeping immigration low and slowly educating the public via the new media.

Race realists should wait for people's delusions to fade gradually, or for the public to awaken suddenly during some sort of crisis like an economic collapse.

By what reckoning are American Jews "cohesive" versus "atomized" American non-Jewish whites? I find it difficult to see how, for example, Satmars and Zionists, Noam Chomsky and Charles Krauthammer, and the countless other pairs of opposites that constitute American Jews can be part of the same conspiracy to further Jewish group aims. What aim do Noam Chomsky and Charles Krauthammer even agree on, let alone are working to achieve? Same with the Satmars and Zionists?

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.